It is not that "tactical" nukes can't be used in battlefields. They can. The small problem is that if the enemy retaliates with hydrogen bombs, nobody would complain....

If by 'hydrogen bombs' you mean escalation to all out strategic nuclear warfare, then I'm not sure there would be anyone left to 'complain'. However, I'm not sure it's really that simple. There was quite a bit of 'study' of potential 'escalation scenarios'. If the decision making is 'rational', then an escalation to a strategic nuclear exchange should be based on a high level threat to national interests, or even existence. Take a Cold War era Warsaw Pact vs. NATO in West Germany scenario. The Soviets breakthrough with an armoured division and NATO, too thin on the ground to 'contain' it drop a tac nuke on it. Do the Soviets then launch an all out strategic nuclear strike on the US, secure in the knowledge that 'world opinion' will not condemn them for it because their poor Guards armoured division threatening to cross the Rhine was the first 'victim' of a tac nuke strike? If they are acting rationally, it would be the US retaliation that they would be worried about, and not 'world opinion'. Retaliation for the tac nuke strike would more likely take the form of an incremental escalation. Say a chemical weapons attack on a NATO airbase.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana

If by 'hydrogen bombs' you mean escalation to all out strategic nuclear warfare, then I'm not sure there would be anyone left to 'complain'. However, I'm not sure it's really that simple. There was quite a bit of 'study' of potential 'escalation scenarios'. If the decision making is 'rational', then an escalation to a strategic nuclear exchange should be based on a high level threat to national interests, or even existence. Take a Cold War era Warsaw Pact vs. NATO in West Germany scenario. The Soviets breakthrough with an armoured division and NATO, too thin on the ground to 'contain' it drop a tac nuke on it. Do the Soviets then launch an all out strategic nuclear strike on the US, secure in the knowledge that 'world opinion' will not condemn them for it because their poor Guards armoured division threatening to cross the Rhine was the first 'victim' of a tac nuke strike? If they are acting rationally, it would be the US retaliation that they would be worried about, and not 'world opinion'. Retaliation for the tac nuke strike would more likely take the form of an incremental escalation. Say a chemical weapons attack on a NATO airbase.

yes, but the Russians had made it clear that they did not recognize the difference between a tactical strike and a strategic one; they said that the nukes were inherently a strategic weapon and its use would have strategoic consequences.

And even if the attacks are tactical the effects may not be for the other side. Observe

So the Russians are miffed about the nuking. "Here we are minding their own business, invading w europe, and we get attacked liked that. So sad, retaliation must come comrade. yes yes, measured response, we will only attack military targets. The NATO submarine base at Holy Loch it is, sorry about Glasgow being so near and downwind. But hey."

The UK will respond something like "okay chaps, not really cricket, we have to strike back. Military tagets it is. Say good bye to your Baltic fleet bases. Pity about Leningrad".

And so............

The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".

yes, but the Russians had made it clear that they did not recognize the difference between a tactical strike and a strategic one; they said that the nukes were inherently a strategic weapon and its use would have strategoic consequences.

And even if the attacks are tactical the effects may not be for the other side. Observe

So the Russians are miffed about the nuking. "Here we are minding their own business, invading w europe, and we get attacked liked that. So sad, retaliation must come comrade. yes yes, measured response, we will only attack military targets. The NATO submarine base at Holy Loch it is, sorry about Glasgow being so near and downwind. But hey."

The UK will respond something like "okay chaps, not really cricket, we have to strike back. Military tagets it is. Say good bye to your Baltic fleet bases. Pity about Leningrad".

And so............

Yes, the Soviets 'said' that they did not recognize a distinction between 'tactical' and 'strategic' weapons. However, that was largely self-serving, seeing as tac nukes were one of the few weapons systems where NATO actually had an advantage. Further, the Soviets position was that chemical weapons were more in the 'class' of conventional weapons than tac nukes were. Needless to NATO disagreed with that stance. To further complicate matters, France and the UK had control of their own 'theatre' level nukes. So using tac nukes in the 'battlefield' zone of 'Germany' (who had no nukes of their own) was one thing, attacking bases in the UK or France was a different matter. My point was that Soviet decision making would presumably be rational, and they were quite capable of realizing potential consequences. So it was a matter of whether they felt that the loss of the Guards armoured division crossing the Rhine was worth retaliating for in a manner which would lead to the loss of their own cities. Also note that it was the Soviets who backed down during the Cuban missile crisis, when the US was willing to go to the brink.

Edited by deadkenny - 10-Jun-2008 at 08:09

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana

Yes, the Soviets 'said' that they did not recognize a distinction between 'tactical' and 'strategic' weapons. However, that was largely self-serving, seeing as tac nukes were one of the few weapons systems where NATO actually had an advantage. Further, the Soviets position was that chemical weapons were more in the 'class' of conventional weapons than tac nukes were. Needless to NATO disagreed with that stance. To further complicate matters, France and the UK had control of their own 'theatre' level nukes. So using tac nukes in the 'battlefield' zone of 'Germany' (who had no nukes of their own) was one thing, attacking bases in the UK or France was a different matter. My point was that Soviet decision making would presumably be rational, and they were quite capable of realizing potential consequences. So it was a matter of whether they felt that the loss of the Guards armoured division crossing the Rhine was worth retaliating for in a manner which would lead to the loss of their own cities. Also note that it was the Soviets who backed down during the Cuban missile crisis, when the US was willing to go to the brink.

It is hard for me to understand how people still plays around with using nuclear bombs in wars. Next time somebody do will be the end.

The only "useful" application of "tactical" nukes is in terrorist attacks to the cities of developed countries.

Conventional armies aren't useful to play wars as it used to be, because the next nuke war won't left a soldier alive. Get real.

The only purpose of large armies and defense budgets of certain superpowers today is to use force to dominate and abusse of poor countries. There is no other job for militaries today that work as oppresors of third world nations, torture disidents, fight terrorism and march in sunday parades.

Edited by pinguin - 10-Jun-2008 at 17:16

"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

It is hard for me to understand how people still plays around with using nuclear bombs in wars. Next time somebody do will be the end.

The only "useful" application of "tactical" nukes is in terrorist attacks to the cities of developed countries.

Conventional armies aren't useful to play wars as it used to be, because the next nuke war won't left a soldier alive. Get real.

The only purpose of large armies and defense budgets of certain superpowers today is to use force to dominate and abusse of poor countries. There is no other job for militaries today that work as oppresors of third world nations, torture disidents, fight terrorism and march in sunday parades.

I am being 'real', certainly more 'realistic' than those that claim any use of a 'nuclear' weapon in any context anywhere will lead immediately and automatically to a devestating all out strategic nuclear exchange. A small tac nuke being used by terrorists is certainly a possiblity, although I would not use the words 'useful application' to describe such a scenario. There is certainly a 'threshold' that exists with regard to the use of any nuclear weapon, due to world opinion for instance. However, that will always be 'offset' by the interests of the parties involved in any incident. Although 'world opinion' may be against it, the national population of a particular nation may 'demand' nuclear retaliation. National decision makers hopefully / presumably would more rationally consider national interests and possible consequences. Your closing paragraph does not appear to be related the current debate, just the 'standard' anti-American diatribe.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana

I am being 'real', certainly more 'realistic' than those that claim any use of a 'nuclear' weapon in any context anywhere will lead immediately and automatically to a devestating all out strategic nuclear exchange.

There is no distinction between 'tactical' and 'strategic' nukes. They all kill people the same way and produce the same environmental damage. Only in the minds of militaristic engineers could exist a distinction. Once the first nuke explodes, there is no way to stop the pandemonium that follows.

deadkenny wrote:

...

A small tac nuke being used by terrorists is certainly a possiblity, although I would not use the words 'useful application' to describe such a scenario. There is certainly a 'threshold' that exists with regard to the use of any nuclear weapon, due to world opinion for instance. However, that will always be 'offset' by the interests of the parties involved in any incident. Although 'world opinion' may be against it, the national population of a particular nation may 'demand' nuclear retaliation. National decision makers hopefully / presumably would more rationally consider national interests and possible consequences.

Hopefully, they don't retaliate on the wrong people, as usually happens

deadkenny wrote:

...

Your closing paragraph does not appear to be related the current debate, just the 'standard' anti-American diatribe.

It was an anti-militaristic diatribe... If you want to apply it to Americans, it is your responsability

"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

There is no distinction between 'tactical' and 'strategic' nukes. They all kill people the same way and produce the same environmental damage. Only in the minds of militaristic engineers could exist a distinction. Once the first nuke explodes, there is no way to stop the pandemonium that follows.

Hopefully, they don't retaliate on the wrong people, as usually happens

It was an anti-militaristic diatribe... If you want to apply it to Americans, it is your responsability

I wasn't trying to establish that terms such as tactical or strategic were absolutes. However, the distinction between hitting a frontline combat unit with a 'small yield' nuke vs. hitting an entire city with a high yield nuke would have been quite apparent to the decision makers. You comment regarding high and low yields (i.e. read strategic and tactical) producing the 'same environmental damage' is simply wrong. You also ignore that chemical weapons could easily do far more damage than a single small yield nuclear weapon. You are also incorrect in your assumption that once a single nuke was used that there would be 'no control' over what happened subsequently. The decision makers would still be in control, and their decision would determine the subsequent course of events.

'Innocents' inevitably end up getting 'caught in the crossfire' one way or the other. If the Warsaw Pact had invaded densely populated western Europe, the civilian population would have suffered greatly, even if both sides had scrupulously limited themselves to using 'conventional' weapons. Those on the 'anti-nuclear' bandwagon often fail to appreciate the destructive power of the large 'conventional' warheads. The Soviet artillery / rocketry was quite capable of wiping small towns off the face of the Earth. I doubt the dead would have appreciated the difference between being the victim of a chemical reaction vs. a nuclear reaction.

Regarding your final comment, you 'specified' a 'superpower', so that does tend to rather limit the field.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana

Yes, chemical weapons could be very nasty. It is acceptable to blew up people and dismembered them by bombing, actually. Using napalm for the same job or muzard gas, however, is not acceptable.

In my case I don't accept war, less the military industry that drains resources that could be used for more interesting ends than kill people.

Don't ask me why, but somehow people is not in love with war, anymore, less with military people.

In case of military of underdevelop countries, having lived under Pinochet I don't appreciate them much either. They don't have the power of destroying the world, though, which is in theirs favor, I guess.

Edited by pinguin - 10-Jun-2008 at 22:19

"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

The question given above the poll, whether the development or use of tactical nuclear weapons was acceptable probably needs some work. I find myself split by its wording. While I view the development of such weapons as acceptable. This belief comes about because in order to maintain a convincing deterrent a country must be able to make reasonable threats and responding in kind to a tactical nuclear strike is a reasonable threat, destroying an entire country, and in the process killing all of the hostages which prevent the other country from doing the same to you is not. I would not even be totally opposed to the use of such weapons if other WMD had been used first by the other side. However, the first use of any type of WMD, especially now that we know exactly what an atomic bomb can do strikes me as very much unacceptable on a moral level. So long story short, I'm not sure how to vote in this poll. I'll probably go with yes because my contrary personality demands that I take the choice that will make the most people mad.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum